%PDF-1.6
%
1 0 obj
<>
endobj
2 0 obj
<>stream
2021-07-02T15:27:20-04:00
2021-07-02T15:27:19-04:00
2021-07-02T15:27:20-04:00
Adobe Acrobat 17.0
application/pdf
04-03412.a1
uuid:920eb2b4-4acc-4724-af29-a1a0da480c2a
uuid:8abe7750-1875-4fef-9884-5ea91e0c3b9f
Acrobat Web Capture 15.0
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
<>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
15 0 obj
<>>>
endobj
16 0 obj
<>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>
endobj
19 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
20 0 obj
[18 0 R 18 0 R]
endobj
18 0 obj
<><>]/P 16 0 R/Pg 13 0 R/S/Article>>
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 0/Type/Page>>
endobj
21 0 obj
[27 0 R 28 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(04-03412.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archi\
ved%20-%20HTML/04-03412.a1.html)Tj
50.24 0 Td
([7/2/2021 3:27:20 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 734.2497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 733.5 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 732.7503 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.75 l
0 1.499 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 733.5 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 618.75 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.75 l
579 -0.75 l
579.749 0 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.7499 618.0003 cm
0 0 m
-0.75 -0.751 l
579 -0.751 l
578.25 0 l
h
f
Q
0.604 g
q 1 0 0 1 16.0002 617.2497 cm
0 0 m
0.75 0.751 l
0 1.5 l
h
f
Q
0.933 g
q 1 0 0 1 594.9999 618.0003 cm
0 0 m
0.75 -0.751 l
0.75 0.75 l
h
f
Q
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 749.25 Tm
(DATE: October 19, 2006)Tj
0 -3.25 TD
(In Re:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(---------)Tj
T*
(SSN: ---------)Tj
T*
(Applicant for Security Clearance)Tj
0 -3.25 TD
(ISCR Case No. 04-03412)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
17.628 -2.125 Td
(APPEAL BOARD DECISION)Tj
2.806 -2.125 Td
(APPEARANCES)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 261.2061 543 cm
0 0 m
89.338 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
11.25 0 0 11.25 251.0312 519 Tm
(FOR GOVERNMENT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-3.721 -2.2 Td
(Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel)Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
4.499 -2.2 Td
(FOR APPLICANT)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-1.915 -2.2 Td
(Vincent P. Deandrea, Jr., Esq.)Tj
12 0 0 12 16 419.25 Tm
(The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals \(DOHA\) declined to grant Ap\
plicant a security clearance. )Tj
41.649 0 Td
(On May 9,)Tj
-41.649 -1.125 Td
(2005, DOHA issued a statement of reasons)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(advising Applicant of the basis for that decision--security concerns rai\
sed)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(under Guideline M \(Use of Information Technology Systems\) and Guidelin\
e E)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
31.798 0 Td
(\(Personal Conduct\), of Department of)Tj
-31.798 -1.125 Td
(Defense Directive 5220.6 \(Jan. 2, 1992\), as amended \(Directive\). )Tj
26.324 0 Td
(Applicant requested a hearing. )Tj
12.467 0 Td
(On March 16, 2006,)Tj
-38.791 -1.125 Td
(after the hearing, Administrative Judge Charles D. Ablard granted Applic\
ant's request for a security clearance.)Tj
T*
(Department Counsel timely appealed pursuant)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.8 0 Td
(to the Directive \266\266 E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.)Tj
-18.8 -2.125 Td
(Department Counsel raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Ad\
ministrative Judge committed harmful error)Tj
T*
(in admitting into evidence the expert)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.94 0 Td
(testimony and expert report of Applicant's witness; and whether the Judg\
e's)Tj
-14.94 -1.125 Td
(application of Guideline M Mitigating Condition 1 and )Tj
22.275 0 Td
(his mitigation of the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.333 0 Td
(security concerns under Guideline M and)Tj
-30.607 -1.125 Td
(Guideline E, and his whole-person analysis )Tj
17.58 0 Td
(were arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by the record evidence. )Tj
27.211 0 Td
(The)Tj
-44.791 -1.125 Td
(Board affirms the Judge's favorable security clearance decision.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Department Counsel's arguments lack merit. )Tj
18.009 0 Td
(With regard to the first issue raised, Department Counsel contends that)Tj
-18.009 -1.125 Td
(Applicant gave him short notice of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.163 0 Td
(Applicant's intent to call an expert witness and particularly short noti\
ce of the expert)Tj
-14.163 -1.125 Td
(report Applicant intended to offer into evidence. )Tj
19.604 0 Td
(However, Department)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.135 0 Td
(Counsel could have requested a continuance, but)Tj
-28.739 -1.125 Td
(did not do so. )Tj
(Department Counsel argued at the hearing against the admission of the ex\
pert report into)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
41.462 0 Td
(evidence)Tj
-41.462 -1.125 Td
(because the Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure \(FRCP\) wou\
ld require submission of the notes used by the)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(expert to prepare his report)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
11.079 0 Td
(along with the report itself. )Tj
11.108 0 Td
(He repeated this interpretation of FRCP 26 in his appeal brief.)Tj
-22.187 -1.125 Td
(The FRCP are not binding in decisions issued under the Directive,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
26.773 0 Td
(and it was not error for the Administrative Judge to)Tj
-26.773 -1.125 Td
(admit the report without submission of the notes. )Tj
19.859 0 Td
(Moreover, the report was largely repetitive of the expert)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
22.713 0 Td
(testimony to)Tj
-42.572 -1.375 Td
(which )Tj
(Department Counsel did not object.)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 219.291 140.25 Tm
( \(1\))Tj
ET
0 0 0.933 RG
q 1 0 0 1 219.291 139.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 110.25 Tm
(With regard to Department Counsel's arguments on mitigation, the Adminis\
trative Judge had substantial evidence on)Tj
T*
(which to base his conclusions. )Tj
12.387 0 Td
(The)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(expert witness testified that in his opinion Applicant had not misused h\
is computer)Tj
-12.387 -1.125 Td
(since he was terminated and would not do so in the future. )Tj
23.578 0 Td
(The Judge )Tj
(gave)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(a rational explanation for his application of)Tj
-23.578 -1.375 Td
(Mitigating Condition 1)Tj
0 0 0.933 rg
9.75 0 0 9.75 126.6719 71.25 Tm
( \(2\))Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 126.6719 70.5 cm
0 0 m
13.806 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 140.478 66.75 Tm
( and his conclusions regarding mitigation under Guideline M and Guidelin\
e E. )Tj
31.632 0 Td
(The Judge)Tj
-42.005 -1.125 Td
(likewise stated a reasonable and factually supported basis for his favor\
able conclusions under the whole-person concept.)Tj
ET
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
12 0 0 12 16 39.75 Tm
(The unfavorable evidence cited by)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.077 0 Td
(Department Counsel is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge's conclusi\
ons were)Tj
ET
EMC
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
<>
endobj
24 0 obj
(JؠD\))
endobj
25 0 obj
<>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>
endobj
31 0 obj
<>
endobj
32 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0~
CI)i9e{V'='E},!')c 8'h;"-Z^;6N}TBMf->}h!ss/Pܻmׄ[ɗs;"` d
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
<>stream
H|y\TG5o^p rxfQ"Ѭ,jd7FCEPT#
xx'x!ނ1#oWIfң.fH}炙 x!ެy>bj¼Fns7ML*0m'N4gj'X0 !6Qcw|-6P@RFui6O) r
uJy\ \Y#Ǧ$\}ЏO2<C?uXB&:У